The Official "Multi-Driver Rule" Discussion

[jim.gandy]

Reno Region's Board of Directors wants your input on what our 2009 Solo "multi-driver rule" should be. The Board changed the rule for our 2008 events, but eventually we ended up rescinding the change. So, the rule returns to what it was in 2007:

At the discretion of the Event Chairperson, vehicles with more than two drivers may be allowed to compete if it is determined there will be no significant impact on event operation or fairness of competition. Cars will be limited to two (2) drivers per run group, with additional drivers running opposite the primary drivers. The Event Chairperson will make an effort to consult with affected participants regarding the fairness of competitors running out of class before allowing more than two drivers per vehicle.

This will be a "hot topic" next winter. You may have been unaware of it (because it all happened in so short a time), but it seems the "multi-driver rule" has the potential to generate just as much passion as the Street Tire Handicap Factor.

So, what are your feelings about cars with multiple drivers? Let's get the topic out there, so everyone can be aware of it and everyone can keep an eye on how the existing rule works at our events this season.

As the thread develops, I think you'll see just how complex this issue is. But, don't be afraid to post! We need to hear your thoughts!

[Kevin M]

Pro multi driver: It's common at large or Divisional/National events, and it accomodates more people into the sport.

Cons: In our small region, it can be highly disruptive to smoothly and efficiently running the group through grid as we sometimes manage less than 10 minutes between single drivers, let alone a car that has more than one co-driver.


While there's a clear majority of people who will never have a need to put 3 or 4 people in one vehicle, majority rule all by itself isn't the fairest solution. I think the return to 2007's rule is probably best- when we can allow 3+ drivers, we should, but if it means course workers and other drivers sitting around waiting for the permitted 5 minutes between one vehcicle's runs, it's not in the best interest of the participants of the event as a whole. Just my $.02 worth.

[MPREZIV]

My car not being one that needs much in the way of "cool off" or prep between runs, it wasn't really much of a hassle to me when I "2 driver'd" last year a couple times. I can see it being a bit of a pain maybe, if you need more time between runs to keep the car at optimum, but I was frankly execting a bit of a rush, our region being so small. It just took a bit of organisation, getting the other driver in the car, while you swap numbers and check tire pressure. There's really just not a lot of space between the front and rear of the grid, so in order to have 5 mins some times, we'll find ourselves sitting and waiting...

Yeah, that post doesn't really say much in a "pro or con" kinda way, just my input. I simply think there'll need to be a bit of give and take on both sides, in that the paired drivers should *expect* a bit of a rush sometimes, as we all are aware that our run groups are just plain not that big at times, and the workers/other drivers can understand that some vehicles need more time between runs, and allow a bit of leverage.

that was a long sentence. puntcuation>me

[Skyhorse]

I did not see any problems in Reno last year with multi driver cars. (The existing rule seems to work well) In Stockton I have twice been stuck flagging while one or two cars get all their runs in once for an extra hour, last time for 45 minutes I am sure I will ruffle some feathers with that statement and since it is not my region I never said anything at the event. I understand things break but putting 4 or 5 people in a car in one run group is just plain irritating and unfair for the workers -that’s my rant for the day

[Kevin M]

My car not being one that needs much in the way of "cool off" or prep between runs, it wasn't really much of a hassle to me when I "2 driver'd" last year a couple times. I can see it being a bit of a pain maybe, if you need more time between runs to keep the car at optimum, but I was frankly execting a bit of a rush, our region being so small. It just took a bit of organisation, getting the other driver in the car, while you swap numbers and check tire pressure. There's really just not a lot of space between the front and rear of the grid, so in order to have 5 mins some times, we'll find ourselves sitting and waiting...

Yeah, that post doesn't really say much in a "pro or con" kinda way, just my input. I simply think there'll need to be a bit of give and take on both sides, in that the paired drivers should *expect* a bit of a rush sometimes, as we all are aware that our run groups are just plain not that big at times, and the workers/other drivers can understand that some vehicles need more time between runs, and allow a bit of leverage.

that was a long sentence. puntcuation>me

Cory, we're trying to figure out what to do with 3+ drivers in a car. :) 2 is totally okay.

[MPREZIV]

Cory, we're trying to figure out what to do with 3+ drivers in a car. :) 2 is totally okay.

My opinion still applies... I didn't say it was poignant!:D

[AlexR]

If it doesn't slow down the event it might as well be unlimited.

The rule book i think says there's supposed to be 5 minutes in between runs , i think to have tires cool down and stuff. If it comes down to being stuck on course extra time or someone gets to run on hotter tires, i'de vote let them run on hot tires.

There was one event where a co-driven car had a mechanical issue that was fixed before the end of their run group. and that car did 4 or 6 more runs, and they took 5 minutes cool down in between runs (and drivers). that was UBER LAME. :mad: working for an extra 30 minutes so a co-driven car that had mechanical could get all 5 or 6 runs in. i just kept thinking if it was me, I'de forfeit my runs instead of doing that to the course workers.
Or maybe pick randomly from the field and give people fun runs so we don't just waste the time. that would be fine too.

Maybe we should limit end of run waiting to once. In example if you missed your turn, or mechanical, or you needed a lot of cool down time, once ever car has gone and its just yours, all your runs need to be completed in 7 minutes (ie run once, 5 minute cool down, one more) and if you lose out on runs, too bad.

But i'm sure better solutions will be proposed.

[MattR]

But i'm sure better solutions will be proposed.


You would think...:rolleyes:

[Dean]

Our little region is growing up.

Events with over 100 competitors are commonplace and events with 6 and 7 runs are a thing of the past.

Those alone are reducing some of the "fun" factor in our events.

It is likely as we continue to grow that more changes that reduce the "fun" will have to be implemented.

Things that come to mind are:

The splitting of Open and Ladies into different run groups.

No more running similar cars from different classes in the same run group.

Working in different half of the day from when you run.

Only 3 runs

Runs that start at 8AM and end after 5PM...

Change is not easy for anyone, but changes will come, some sooner than others. As the region grows, they are inevitable.

It will be up to each individual to determine if they want to continue to participate as the changes happen.

[AlexR]

If it ever comes to the point where you have to be there all day, for 3 runs. we could consider splitting half the drivers into Saturday and the other half into Sunday.

you run course A in the morning, and the exact course, but backwards in the afternoon. Sunday the other half does. that way it would be 1 day of 6 runs. with each course scored as a separate event.

or we cross that bridge if/when it happens

[dsmith]

I don't want to be a portent of doom, but I think we should see how attendance figures are for this year before really getting into changes. I think, just from seeing how other discretionary income types of events are being effected in the region, that the economy might bring our numbers down this summer; maybe big time. I would not be surprised to see a 20-30% drop off in participation, and that alone might solve some of these issues in the short term.

[Kevin M]

I think Dean's doomsaying is going to require a significantly larger field than we're currently getting. Even 150 entrants should get 4 runs, 5 on a short course.

[Dean]

I was not doom saying or saying any of these would happen this year, or even a few in the next few years, but changes are coming and compromises or complete abandonment will have to be made with some of the rules and practices the region has put in place which will have an impact on the "fun".

All I am saying is that we will have to be more flexible and realize that we will not be able to do things the same as in the past as we grow.

Oh, and course length has nothing to do with number of runs. It is time between starts that impacts the number of cars per hour you can run and thus total number of runs.

[82AS]

Just remember they can not get my Jack Daniels no matter how hard they try.

[S2kreno]

splitting ladies off into a different group makes little sense to me, then if the guy who's co-driving with you runs in a regular group you could end up staying all day. yuck. there are two ways to deal with overcrowding -- one is self-regulating; if the experience degrades to the point where people aren't willing to put up with it then the crowds will diminish. the other is to increase the enty fees until the crowd lessens; both ways have disadvantages, it depends on what is more important to you -- time or money. however, increasing fees would bring in more cash. if those who treasure their time pay more, and those who value their money work more (at PDX or other events to get their entry fees waived or discounted) we could perhaps strike a balance fair to most.